This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] On: 20 December 2013, At: 15:06 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Technology Analysis & Strategic Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20 Research technology organisations as leaders of R&D collaboration with SMEs: role, barriers and facilitators José Albors-Garrigós a , Carlos A. Rincon-Diaz a & Juan Ignacio Igartua-Lopez b a Departamento de Organización de Empresas, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain b Departamento de Mecánica y Producción Industrial, Mondragon Unibertsitatea, Arrasate, Spain Published online: 09 Nov 2013. To cite this article: José Albors-Garrigós, Carlos A. Rincon-Diaz & Juan Ignacio Igartua-Lopez (2014) Research technology organisations as leaders of R&D collaboration with SMEs: role, barriers and facilitators, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26:1, 37-53, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2013.850159 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.850159 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 20 December 2013, At: 15:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Technology Analysis & StrategicManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20
Research technology organisations asleaders of R&D collaboration with SMEs:role, barriers and facilitatorsJosé Albors-Garrigósa, Carlos A. Rincon-Diaza & Juan IgnacioIgartua-Lopezb
a Departamento de Organización de Empresas, UniversidadPolitécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spainb Departamento de Mecánica y Producción Industrial, MondragonUnibertsitatea, Arrasate, SpainPublished online: 09 Nov 2013.
To cite this article: José Albors-Garrigós, Carlos A. Rincon-Diaz & Juan Ignacio Igartua-Lopez(2014) Research technology organisations as leaders of R&D collaboration with SMEs: role,barriers and facilitators, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26:1, 37-53, DOI:10.1080/09537325.2013.850159
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.850159
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Research technology organisations asleaders of R&D collaboration with SMEs:role, barriers and facilitators
José Albors-Garrigósa∗, Carlos A. Rincon-Diaza and Juan Ignacio Igartua-Lopezb
aDepartamento de Organización de Empresas, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain;bDepartamento de Mecánica y Producción Industrial, Mondragon Unibertsitatea, Arrasate, Spain
Research technology organisations or RTOs have attracted academic interest in the last decadedue to their role as technology transfer agents and R&D collaborative leaders for firms andespecially for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Although their role within the diversityof specialised structures in generating R&D for industry in National Innovation Systems isrecognised, there are scarce publications in relation to their strategies, performance or char-acteristic, as leaders of R&D collaboration with SMEs. The aim of this work is to identifythe role, barriers and facilitators for RTOs performance as well as to develop a contingencyrelationship between industry environment, strategy, organisational structure and other factorsfor successful technology transfer from technology organisations to SMEs. This research isbased on a field study conducted on 14 technology organisations based in the Valencia region,working with various industry sectors.
Research technology organisations (RTOs)1 perform a facilitating role in the collaborative effortsof small and medium enterprises (SMEs) towards innovation (Aström, Eriksson, andArnold 2008;Tann, Platts, and Stein 2002). This collaboration contributes to create a competitive advantage forboth RTOs and partnering firms (Bititci et al. 2003). However, RTOs still have to face a numberof challenges as will be discussed later on.
Usually, the collaboration schemes between RTOs and firms take place through the developmentof engineering or R&D projects and, in this case, joint project management and communicationsplay a relevant role within such a learning environment (Mas-Verdú 2007).
Moreover, SMEs try to build networks with RTOs for dealing with R&D, due to the fact thatmost of these companies do not own real laboratories or R&D capabilities. Therefore, RTOscould act in different ways within the network, as a hub (Dhanaraj and Parkhe 2006) using its
prominence and power to perform a leadership role in pulling together the dispersed resourcesand capabilities of companies and their networks or more as a reactive institution. The role ofRTOs in orchestrating these networks raises questions regarding their strategy, performance andorganisational configuration.
Most of the academic research on RTOs has focused mainly on external factors such as financingor internal activities (Barge-Gil and Modrego-Rico 2007) or the changing demand dynamics(Howells 1999), but it has not extended to organisational factors or technology transfer or theirimpact on final performance. This paper intends to fill that research gap by proposing a constructto identify the different types of strategies that RTOs adopt based on their diverse organisationalelements and the technology intensity regime of the firms’ environment served by them.
The objectives of this paper are to analyse a specific case of a collaborative scheme, that of theResearch Technology Institutes, and, as a first proxy, the particular cases of RTOs in a Spanishregion – serving traditional and modern sectors – and their innovation strategies within their rolein R&D collaboration with SMEs. It will analyse as well their approach to conventional RTOstrategies.
The research will examine input (independent) and output (dependent) variables that affect theefficiency of the collaborative processes of these RTOs with SMEs. Other context variables suchas industry environment have also been taken into account. A construct relating these variableshas been proposed as a means of analysing the relationship between the variables.
This paper intends to fill the research gap by proposing a construct to analyse and identify thedifferent types of RTOs based on the different organisational elements and knowledge transferwithin the technology regime of the RTO firms’ environment. Our research is based on a previousstudy of outsourced R&D supported by the Basque Regional Innovation Agency, the denominatedR&D Units (Albors-Garrigos, Zabaleta, and Ganzarain 2010).
This paper is organised as follows: first, a state-of-the-art of RTOs is provided in order toanalyse the science and technology policy field context, the RTO strategy body of knowledgeas well as the variables which may play a relevant role in the proposed model. Second, thehypotheses are proposed along with the construct which supports them. Third, the research studyand methodology are described together with the results of the study. Finally, conclusions aredrawn and recommendations for practitioners and policy-makers are made.
State-of-the-art: the roles, challenges and strategies of RTOs
RTOs have been defined as organisations whose main business is R&D, with the aim of enhancingthe innovative performance of their customers. These organisations are characterised as well byheterogeneity in relation to their mission, ownership, legal and organisational status or output(Leitner 2005). In Europe, these organisations have various outputs ranging from basic researchto product development or technical services and engineering (Mas-Verdú 2007). They are arelevant tool for open and global innovation as builders of innovation networks and clustersagents (Vigier 2007).
According to Aström, Eriksson, and Arnold (2008), RTOs’ main roles are as mediators,importers, creators and suppliers of knowledge. Additionally, they are providers of infrastructureand independent and partial testing and certification.
RTOs are a fundamental tool for innovation policy and their main role is to address marketfailures such as appropriability barriers, a well-defined information market, innovation uncertaintyand the size of the SME population (Barge-Gil and Modrego-Rico 2008) in their environment. Inmany countries, RTOs carry a substantial weight of the R&D investment and their role may vary
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
RTOs role as leaders of SME technology innovation 39
Figure 1. RTO position in the innovation system.
according to national context (Aström, Eriksson, and Arnold 2008). They are not substitutable byuniversities since their services are completely different (Arnold et al. 2007). Research TechnologyCentres are the first agents to be considered for knowledge generation and transfer (see Figure 1)in any Innovation System.
Other authors have highlighted the contribution of RTOs as key agents of their territorialinnovation system, in compiling and disseminating knowledge since their offer of knowledge-intensive services is relevant to the firm’s internationalisation process and supporting connectivitybetween innovation agents (Barge and Modrego 2008; Martínez-Gómez, Baviera Puig, andMas-Verdú 2009; Tann, Platts, and Stein 2002). In this respect, they play a relevant role in regionaldevelopment policies by supporting innovation in the SME structure (Vigier 2007)
Additionally, the strengths and weaknesses of the RTOs have been reviewed according to a rangeof success factors such as continuous monitoring of RTO plans and strategies, the tendency ofmany organisations to conduct basic research, or engineering activities. It has also been pointed outthat most RTOs carry out little advanced research and rarely, if ever, generate major innovations forindustry, while playing a role in assisting industry with incremental innovation, problem solvingand the diffusion and absorption of newly established technologies (Rush et al. 1996).
In this context, the challenges that RTOs currently face should also be highlighted: first, theyhave to compete for research funds in a competitive environment, cope with new research modeswhere knowledge must be generated within a context of application and, finally, develop researchwhich must be trans-disciplinary (Leitner 2005).
Successful RTOs carry out highly specialised technology tasks such as technology monitoring,development and technology diffusion in close contact with industry. Key areas for continuousreview and improvement cover strategy formulation, client monitoring and management, pricingand marketing and human resource management. Therefore, RTOs need a clear strategic visionin order to gain support from both within the RTO and from other important stakeholders in theeconomy. With a clear, reasoned strategy, RTOs stand a far better chance of contributing to thechanging innovation needs of the economy (Arnold et al. 1998; Brockhoff 2003; Leitner 2005).
This research will propose various strategic alternatives followed by RTOs to serve successfullytheir associated firms, as well as the results of a field study. In this direction, and accordingto Brockhoff (2003), the success of R&D activities can have various meanings which are, in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
40 J. Albors-Garrigós et al.
general multidimensional: technical achievements, individual for the RTO partners or economicsuccess for both RTO and their partners. For this author, who contemplates the variety of R&Dorganisations (with profit and non-profit orientation), the results vary for organisations with ahigher or lower turnover, which are more or less innovative, compete in dynamic or more stablemarkets, are most focused on their associated firms or tend to have alternative strategies. Brockhoff(2003) concludes that there are different success cases and each of the R&D organisations willhave to rely on a strategy that best fits its needs. We are following as well this focus of contingentstrategies adapted to each organisation environment and market.
Strategic context and organisational factors influencing innovation and performance ofRTOs
Strategic context
Strategic planning has been recognised as an essential tool for RTOs in facing their actual chal-lenges (Arnold et al. 1998; Aström, Eriksson, and Arnold 2008; Rush et al. 1996). For RTOs, it is akey issue to identify what their ‘business’is and then generate and articulate a strategic vision. Thisexercise must include basic areas such as strategy formulation, monitoring and management ofclients, marketing, developing scientific networking, appropriability policies and human resourcemanagement (Arnold et al. 1998; Brockhoff 2003; Rush et al. 1996).
A number of authors (Saleh and Wang 1993) have analysed how the differences in manage-rial strategy, organisational structure and organisational climate differentiate between innovativeorganisations and their performance. For Pitt and Clarke (1999), the management of strategic inno-vation is ‘the purposeful orchestration of organisational knowledge development and application’.These authors outline various managerial dilemmas associated with this view. Thus, they identifythree basic organisational roles in the firm: cultural, process management and development ofstructures.
There will be environmental factors, such as market complexity and stability, competitivenessand context diversity, which will interact contingently with certain variables such as a firm’sorganisation, age, size or ownership in the selection of innovation strategies (Friedman, Roberts,and Linton 2008).
Technological environment and competitiveness: its impact on RTOs
The contingent relationships between technology, industry environment and competitiveness havebeen analysed by various authors as the greatest sources of uncertainty for organisations and dis-parities in these areas give rise to differences between organisations (Anderson and Tushman2001; Zahra and Bogner 1999). Moreover, Dietrich and Shipley (2000) highlight that a compet-itive environment is the prevalent factor affecting the transfer and adoption of technology. Sincecompetitive environment has been changing and becoming increasingly dynamic, a new tech-nology transfer framework will provide the generic guidelines required for establishing strategicinnovation goals, policies and boundaries for technology transfer within a complex and dynamiccompetitive environment. In this regard, Bozeman (2000) refers to the ‘demand environment’ asone of the five interrelated factors which influence transfer effectiveness, thus emphasising theimportance of an environment that favours technology transfer.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
RTOs role as leaders of SME technology innovation 41
Miller (1987) emphasised a number of variables such as dynamism, hostility and heterogeneity.The more dynamic and hostile the environment is, the greater the need for innovation, and, there-fore, the more likely the existence of innovative firms. Howells (1999) underlined the relevanceof understanding not only the factors affecting the demand for SME services but, specially, alsothe changing dynamics of the nature of these services and the way they are supplied by RTOs.
Lumpkin and Dess (2001) report on two dimensions: proactiveness or the way organisationand firms relate to market opportunities and competitive aggressiveness or how firms react tocompetitive trends and demands of the marketplace. These authors note that both approaches arerelated to each other in performance and differ in the environments in which firms exhibit theseapproaches to strategy making.
In the case of RTOs (and business links), Bessant (1999) pointed out how targeted approacheswere needed in order to facilitate and improve the access of SMEs to Technology Cen-tres due to the diverse technology position of incumbent SMEs. On the other hand, it wasoutlined how SMEs’ technology intensity was an influencing factor in the process of R&Dcooperation (Albors-Garrigos, Zabaleta, and Ganzarain 2010). Mas-Verdú, Baviera-Puig, andMartinez-Gomez (2009) have analysed the influence of environment in the case of RTO and SMEcollaboration.
RTOs and organisational factors: contingent approach
The RTOs’ decisions about service supply and knowledge generation are part of their strate-gic approach and organisational design to allow compatibility (Modrego-Rico, Barge-Gil, andNuñez-Sanchez 2005). Subsequently, RTOs must optimise their social learning cycle and developorganisational competencies aligned with the scientific and technical knowledge progressionrequired in the organisation (Pitt and Clarke 1999).
Human resources development and management, it has been argued, constitute a benchmark-ing indicator for excellent performing RTOs (Nath and Mrinalini 2000; Rush et al. 1996). Theseinclude professional career planning, training and skill development compensation policies,network training, etc.
In a seminal work, Burns and Stalker (1961) defined the relationship between ‘mechanistic’and ‘organic’ organisational systems – variables to the rate of ‘environmental’ change. The latterreferred to the technology basis of industry and to the uncertainty of the market situation. Organicstructures are more flexible and adaptable to changing environment conditions, while mechanis-tic structures are more rigid and correspond to more stable and mature industries. Furthermore,other organisational theorists, Jassawalla and Sashittal (1998), define two alternative structures:‘pronoia’and ‘paranoia’, relating to organic and mechanistic systems, respectively. They note that‘paranoia’ environments tend to slow down technology transfer; in contrast, ‘pronoic’ organisa-tions activate the process. Pronoia is defined as a managerial/organisational condition of healthand vibrancy and the projection of interpersonal, group and organisational cohesiveness that isascribed to the general, veritable effectiveness of others. Consequently, a major objective of anorganisation’s strategy making in relation to R&D activities should be to attain congruence or‘fit’ among key variables such as environment, organisational structure and strategy in order toachieve optimal performance (Davies and Walters 2004; Grandy and Mills 2004).
In this case, and with the exception of two authors (Deutsch, Leclerc, and Meneghini 2009;Rush et al. 1996), who pointed out the relationship between RTOs strategies and organisationalvariables, we have not found any literature analysing the specific relationships of RTOs’ organ-isational structure and their R&D strategies, except in the case of the R&D units mentioned
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
42 J. Albors-Garrigós et al.
(Albors-Garrigos, Zabaleta, and Ganzarain 2010). This is another of the research gaps the paperaims to fill.
Relationships of the centre with the served firms and other firms and institutes
The collaboration of RTOs with their customers and other firms and the related networks estab-lished have been emphasised as best practices by various authors (Mazzoleni and Nelson 2007;Mrinalini and Nath 2008; Nath and Mrinalini 2000; Zubiaurre et al. 2004). Rush et al. (1996)specify that close industrial links form part of the success factors of RTOs and contribute closelyto their market responsiveness. These authors also draw attention to the construction of closelinks with universities and other RTOs as tools for building business intelligence. Moreover, ashas already been mentioned, Castro and Mota (2009) consider RTOs’ potential agents of a localfirm’s collaborative innovation network.
When some researchers (Modrego-Rico, Barge-Gil, and Nuñez-Sanchez 2005) propose indi-cators to measure RTO performance these include, among other factors, a relational dimensionbased on closeness to scientific and entrepreneurial environment as well as collaboration withscientific environment.
Specifically, the services supplied by technological centres with the purpose of improvingregional innovative potential have been examined by García-Quevedo and Mas-Verdú (2008).However, according to these authors, demand for services increases with the size of the clientcompany. Spatial proximity between the client company and the supplier of the services alsoseems to be a relevant factor. In a study of the five ITS systems in the North of Europe, Aström,Eriksson, and Arnold (2008) show that more than 60% of clients are small companies. Molina andMas-Verdú (2008) have analysed RTO cooperation arrangements and innovation performance.In contrast with existing studies, we have provided empirical evidence of the impact of externalfactors on individual firms.
RTO performance and output indicators
As regards RTOs, there is lack of literature related to performance indicators. Modrego-Rico,Barge-Gil, and Nuñez-Sanchez (2005) suggest the following indicators: self-financing ratio as ameasure of the RTO’s capacity for obtaining funds in competition with other agents; relationaldimension as the capacity of RTOs to interact with other agents in their environment; organisa-tional dimension (which includes factors related to learning practices, strategic planning, humanresources management, R&D projects management and marketing management); and, finally,output variables related to the impact of the centre represented by new products and processesdeveloped for their clients. Modrego-Rico, Barge-Gil, and Nuñez-Sanchez classified these indi-cators into three groups of variables: service supply, output and explicative. A more focusedapproach has tried to identify benefits and competitive advantages gained by the incumbents of acollaborative effort (Camarinha-Matos 2007) and this is the research direction the present paperhas followed.
Other authors have proposed knowledge transfer as a benchmarking indicator, including knowl-edge dissemination to be measured by feedback from client companies, and measuring knowledgetransfer items as an alternative (Nath and Mrinalini 2000). García-Quevedo and Mas-Verdú (2008)have outlined the difficulties of RTOs to carry out R&D with small firms.
A more straightforward approach based on intangible assets has been proposed by the AustrianResearch Centre association. This organisation proposed four types of indicators:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
RTOs role as leaders of SME technology innovation 43
(1) Intellectual capital indicators such as scientific staff, employee rotation, training programmes,percentage of women, professional career planning, etc.
(2) Process indicators such as national, international or funded projects, percentage of indepen-dent research, etc.
(3) Results including financial, research or industry oriented.(4) Society-oriented results such as the RTO Web impact and involvement in scientific societies
(Leitner 2005).
Finally, a practical definition and measurement of innovation has been proposed by Arundel andHollanders (2008) and used by the European Commission. The scoreboard identifies six types ofindicators:
• Innovation diversity• Innovation process or product focus• Innovation-friendly markets• Knowledge flows• Innovation investment• Innovation governance, of which some are applicable to the case of RTOs (i.e. number of
patents, new activities, new products or processes, new spin-off firms, scientific publicationsper person, etc.).
In relation to RTO performance indicators and following the mentioned approach of Camarinha-Matos (2007), a positive relationship between turnover or sales figures and R&D intensity has beenunderlined (Aström, Eriksson, and Arnold 2008). These authors consider, as well, the relevanceof turnover from performance contracts with private firms and its relevance as a self-financingindicator (Modrego-Rico, Barge-Gil, and Nuñez-Sanchez 2005). However, other authors discussthe difficulty of conciliating project contract sales with innovation performance due to the lack ofresearch freedom associated with these types of contracts (Arnold et al 1998; Nath and Mrinalini2000).
Again, academic literature has not discussed the relationship between RTO performance andthe previous reviewed factors (technology intensity regime, organisational structure, relationalactivities, innovation strategy and SME orientation). Thus, the holistic construct proposed by thepaper analysing this relationship will be a contribution to fill the mentioned research gap.
Hypotheses and performance model
The theoretical review appears to show that the influence and role of environment in the craftingof the organisation’s innovation strategy has been widely recognised. Consequently, the researchhypotheses are formulated below in relation to RTOs’ role in the R&D collaborative network ofSMEs. It should be mentioned that the different goals of the R&D units in terms of their final resultswere evident in the interviews; while some were more concerned with innovation excellence,others were more focused on economic performance or self-sustainability. This reinforces the ideathat RTOs’ strategy depends on the role they want to play in the SME collaborative innovationnetwork. This observation underpins the first hypothesis (Table 1).
As was considered earlier, structure and personnel policies have a significant role in the inno-vation intensity level within the organisational approach as a result of the challenges assumed by
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
44 J. Albors-Garrigós et al.
Table 1. Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 1 References
The innovation strategy of the RTOsis dependent on served industryenvironment, RTO organisationalstructure, its relational skills and itsSME focus
Anderson and Tushman (2001), Bozeman (2000), Brockhoff(2003), Burns and Stalker (1961), Dietrich and Shipley(2000), Davies and Walters (2004), Damanpour andGopalakrishnan (1998), Friedman, Roberts, and Linton(2008), Grandy and Mills (2004), Jassawalla and Sashittal(1998, 2002), Lumpkin and Dess (2001), Modrego-Rico,Barge-Gil, and Nuñez-Sanchez (2005), Mrinalini andNath (2008), Nath and Mrinalini (2000), Pitt and Clarke(1999), Rush et al. (1996), Saleh and Wang (1993), Stockand Tatikonda (2000), Walker and Ellis (2000), Zahra andBogner (1999), Zubiaurre et al. (2004)
Table 2. Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 2 References
The more organic the organisationalstructure of the R&D Unit, the higherits innovation output
Burns and Stalker (1961), Davies and Walters (2004), Grandyand Mills (2004), Jassawalla and Sashittal (1998, 2002),Modrego-Rico, Barge-Gil, and Nuñez-Sanchez (2005), Pittand Clarke (1999), Rush et al. (1996), Stock and Tatikonda(2000)
Table 3. Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 3 References
Considering the output results, the unitinnovation performance is related toits financial performance indicators
Arnold et al. (1998), Aström, Eriksson, and Arnold(2008), Leitner (2005), Modrego-Rico, Barge-Gil, andNuñez-Sanchez (2005), Nath and Mrinalini (2000)
the RTO within the collaborative innovation network. Accordingly, the following hypothesis isproposed (Table 2).
The theoretical review concluded that in terms of the RTO financial performance indicators,some authors precluded a positive relationship between turnover or sales figures and R&D intensityas well as innovation output, while others expressed certain doubts. This observation emphasisedthat RTOs’ commitment to client companies’ needs (as facilitators of their R&D) should have aneffect on their financial performance. Thus, the following hypothesis can be proposed (Table 3).
In order to understand the relationship between the variables, Figure 2 shows the constructscheme which represents the model to be tested. Some authors (Leitner 2005; Nath and Mrinalini2000) tend to consider RTO complex models with a larger number of indicators of performance(i.e. relational skills), which we view as really explicative factors. In our case, we adapt the modelproposed by Modrego-Rico, Barge-Gil, and Nuñez-Sanchez (2005), which considers outputs suchas self-financing (turnover) and added value (innovation output) for simplicity. Variables such asenvironment, innovation strategy, relational activities, absorptive capacity, project management
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
RTOs role as leaders of SME technology innovation 45
Figure 2. Construct used to analyse R&D units.
routines or organisational structure are interpreted as independent variables although their inter-dependence will also be analysed. The impact on the environment should be left for a secondphase of our research programme.
Research methodology and study: results
RTOs in the region of Valencia
The promotion of RTOs by the Valencia Regional Government was initiated during the mid-1980s and is presently comprised of 14 units. Their primary mission was defined as ‘serving thelocal industry (basically SMEs) in the medium and long term, as well as developing and valuingtheir technological capabilities’ (Redit 2009). Impiva, a Valencian regional government agency,founded the technology institutes networks to serve established industries and local businessinnovation centres to back up new projects, following the examples of Emilia Romagna (Italy),Baden-Württemberg (Germany) and Denmark. One setback, however, is the lack of trust betweenentrepreneurs in these regions. Some institutes are sector focused, for example, AIJU, the instituteof toys located in Ibi, INESCOOP, the institute of shoe manufacturing located in Elche,AIMME theinstitute of furniture orAIMME the institute of metal mechanic industry located inValencia. Otherinstitutes were established later using a horizontal approach with a multidisciplinary technologyfocus such asAIDO, the Optical Technology Institute or ITI, the Information Technology Institute,both based in Valencia (Holmström 2006). Actually, the Valencia region RTOs total investmentin R&D accounts to 25% of the total investment in R&D of the region (Redit 2009).
Research methodology
The research work was based on a questionnaire filled in during personal interviews carried outwith managers of 14 RTOs active in the Valencia region (100% representative sample). Eachinterview lasted between two and three hours. In order to obtain the most reliable results possible,the interviewers ensured that the questions were properly understood and fully completed.2
Taking into account the research objectives as well as the number and characteristics of theR&D organisations, the methodology was based on a questionnaire comprising some 50 questionscovering eight areas of the R&D unit operation.Although the sample was limited in size, it included100% of the RTO population in the region and from the point of view of the representativeness itwas perfectly acceptable. However, the sample size limits the extension of a multivariate analysisand with the objective of simplifying the number of variables and adapting them to the selected
Technology uncertainty, market competitiveness, technologylife cycle (turbulent vs. statics)
V2 Innovation Strategy Motivation for the Unit establishment, R&D activity, riskassumption policies, research freedom, pioneering, linkswith third party non-associated firms (proactive vs. reactive)
V5 Relationship of the centre withthe served firms and otherRTOs and universities
Level of relationships
V6 Innovation performance Patents, licenses, spin-offs, publications and new products orprocesses
V7 Unit Performance TURNOVER Turnover per employee without public support (euros × 103).Values 1–5 corrected thorough mean values
construct; six independent variables were selected for this article from the replies obtained. Thekey variables utilised for the analysis were as follows:
• Technological Environment and Market Competitiveness (V1)• Innovation Strategy (V2)• Organisational structure and personnel policies (V3)• Market orientation towards SMEs (V4)• Relationship of the R&D unit with served firms, universities and other RTOs (V5)• Innovation Performance (V6)• Turnover per employee (V7). They were measured on a five-point Likert scale.
For the output variables, turnover per employee without public support (as a measure of self-sustainability) and innovation intensity was selected. Innovation intensity was measured by thenumber of patents, new activities, new products, new spin-off firms and scientific publicationsper RTO employee in the last three years. Table 4 gives the variables built and how these wereconstructed from the survey questionnaire.
The final values assigned to the variables were 1–5 on a Likert scale, based on a recalculationrelated to the average values of each variable thus obtaining standardised factors.
Results
Table 5 gives the results of the interpretation of the questionnaires. It must be pointed out thatRTOs numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are vertical or sectorally focused. It can be observedthat, in principle, variables (V1) and (V2), V1 and (V3) and (V1) and (V5) are bilaterally related.
Table 6 gives the bivariate correlations between all variables.As mentioned, the sample is 100%representative of the RTO population in the region, but due to its small size (below N = 25), the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
RTOs role as leaders of SME technology innovation 47
Table 5. Variables values according to the replies of the questionnaire.
correlation coefficients must be interpreted with caution (Tompkins 1992), especially in the caseof an excess of outlier cases. However, a sample size of 15 with an acceptable significant level(α) of 0.05 encompasses an absolute error of 0.58.
In those cases of acceptable correlation coefficient, Table 6 gives a positive relationship betweenthe RTO strategy (V1) and its innovation strategy (V2), its (V5) organisational structure (V3), theirrelationship level with other research centres and their innovative performance (V6). The RTOinnovation strategy (V2) has a positive relationship with the organisational structure (V3), theirrelationship level with other research centres (V5) and their innovative performance (V6). Theorganisational structure (V3) of the RTOs is positively related with their relationship level withother research centres (V5) and their innovative performance (V6). Finally, the RTO relationshiplevel with other research centres (V5) is positively related with their innovative performance (V6).
Although the table gives certain correlation coefficients between the SME focus of the RTOs(V4) and other variables, generally of negative signs, an excessive number of outliers impededrawing clear conclusions.
No significant correlation was found between the RTOs turnover figures (V7) and othervariables.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
48 J. Albors-Garrigós et al.
It can be concluded from the previous results that those RTOs with a more turbulent and changingindustry environment and a stronger competitive market, mainly due to high technology rotation,follow more proactive innovative strategies, while RTOs serving mature sectors in medium to lowtech industries show more reactive innovative strategies when supporting the R&D collaborationwith their customer firms. Similarly, those RTOs serving firms competing in more turbulentenvironments show organisational structures organically oriented and with a ‘pronioa’ profileas advanced by Burns and Stalker (1961) as well as Jassawalla and Sashittal (1998). In similarterms, but opposing conclusions, we could refer to those RTOs serving firms in more mature andstable environments. As regards the relational skills of the RTOs, those showing higher valuesof relationships tend to be immersed in more turbulent and changing industries, which could beinterpreted as their need for a higher level of partnering and knowledge sharing.
In relation to the innovative performance of RTOS, it seems to benefit from a more competitiveand technology active environment, proactive strategies, organic structures and a higher level ofrelationships.
Finally, it is difficult to interpret the relationships of the SME focus of the RTOs with othervariables from the analysed data. Our interviews show that SME relationship with RTOs was dif-ficult, especially in those firms of smaller size in innovative projects that are R&D led. A differentcase was the relationship of RTOS with SMEs in other services such as analysis, engineering,quality certificates, etc. It seems that RTOs identify the lack of innovation culture in SMEs as arelevant barrier. Some of them try to involve SMEs in cooperative innovation programmes with thesupport of Regional and National programmes. This could be interpreted as the need for reactivestrategies (short-term demands) and classical organisational approaches to deal with small sizefirms’ approach to R&D collaboration. The type of services required with a low R&D contenthinder as well the outcome of innovative outputs.
Figure 3 shows the dispersion plot of the variables with the environment variable representedin the Y -axis. This graph shows more visually the relationships between those variables.
Discussion
As regards the hypotheses proposed, the conclusions drawn from the data analysed are summarisedbelow.
First, the proposed model supports empirically a relationship between technology and industryenvironment, strategy and organisational structure following the Burns and Stalker (1961) premise,which holds that strategy-making in RTOs should look for congruency among key variablessuch as environment, structure and strategy in order to achieve optimal performance. ThoseRTOs leading firms’ collaborative R&D in a more turbulent and competitive environment (RTOnumber 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9) possess a higher level of organic structure and follow a more proactiveinnovation strategy. Moreover, their relationship skills are higher taking advantage of a more denserelationship network with other international RTOs, universities and other agents. However, theyare not more oriented towards a SME segment than others. We can conclude then that hypothesis 1can be validated partially.
Second, considering the organisational structure of the RTOs, this variable seems to be asso-ciated as well with the relationships variable and the innovation performance variable. Thus,hypothesis 2 is completely validated indicating that RTOs follow the Burns and Stalker model interms of the innovation performance, relating to the effect of two alternative structures: organicand mechanistic systems.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
RTOs role as leaders of SME technology innovation 49
Figure 3. Dispersion graphic plot of variables relationship results.
With regard to the economic performance (turnover), this variable does not seem to be relatedto the innovation performance. Those RTOs with a higher turnover per employee (RTO number 1,5, 11, 12, 14, 9 and 7) show varied values of innovation performance which do not allow us to inferany conclusions. It has also been noted that engineering contracts, competitive research projectsor technical services do not imply innovation results but contribute to a higher RTO performance.It cannot be concluded a negative relationship as in the case of focused or specialised RTOs (seeAlbors-Garrigos, Zabaleta, and Ganzarain 2010).
Summary and final conclusions
The main objective of this paper was to analyse performance models followed by RTOs – servingtraditional and modern sectors – and their innovation strategies related to their role in the R&Dcollaboration approach of SMEs. The aim was to examine as well their approach to conventionalRTO strategies when dealing with companies collaborative innovation. The research consideredinput and output dependent variables, which may affect their efficiency.A relevant context variable– their industry environment – was also taken into account as a moderating factor.
The literature review showed how various authors have analysed diverse aspects of RTOs asfacilitators of the R&D collaborative networks of companies. The relevance of RTOs strategiesand the need to outline clearly their mission and vision have been also emphasised as a meansof fulfilling their role as leaders for R&D collaboration. Various authors have also analysedRTO organisational factors and their relationships with their challenges. The role of RTOs in the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
50 J. Albors-Garrigós et al.
technology transfer tasks was also discussed as well as its service to SMEs. Finally, a relevant areaof research was the discussion of various indicators utilised to measure its performance. Someauthors focused on performance indicators, which were viewed as strategic tools as in the case ofthe relationship connections of RTOs.
It could be concluded that the actual body of knowledge on RTOs’ role in R&D collaborationwith companies lacks a certain connection between the various themes or areas covered in relationto RTOs. This has been the aim of this paper, which proposes a model connecting the industry orserved environment by RTOs with their strategy, their organisational elements and their perfor-mance as well as their fitness to provide technological services to the SME regional populationin their region.
The paper analysed context variables such as technology environment and market competitive-ness and organisational variables such as innovation strategy, structure and personnel policies,relational policies and RTO SME focus. Both types of variables affect the efficiency of RTOsmeasured by their innovation output and their turnover per employee.
According to the proposed construct, the model shows that different R&D collaborativeapproaches will require different strategies in order to achieve excellent performance (as suggestedby Arnold et al. 1998 or Cesaroni 2004). It appears that organisational policies are influenced bystrategy and environment, and hence the more organic RTOs are more open to other researchpartners, firms and RTOs and posses a higher technology level and innovation performance.However, it seems that mechanistic R&D units pay greater attention to engineering because theirtechnology rotation ratio is lower and they are more focused on turnover results. It is inter-esting to observe how this construct follows Burns and Stalker’s (1961) as well as Jassawallaand Sashittal’s (1998) propositions. Nevertheless, the authors would emphasise that turnover isnot a clear and independent objective for RTOs but only a means for sustainability (Arnold et al.2007).
This situation opens a paradigm selection for those RTOs working in more traditional industryenvironments such as furniture, textile, tile ceramics, etc. These have to balance their strategybetween traditional certification and consultancy services and a higher R&D and innovationfocus, while supporting a sustainable financial status. A further limitation for these RTOs is theSME market focus due to its reactive approach and their lower innovative culture.
Certain lesson for policy-makers and RTOs managers can be drawn. In first place the mission ofthe various RTOs has to be clearly defined and it must be designed in relation to their served market.In those traditional sectors where SMEs are more reactive to their environment, the RTOs shouldhave a culture change role and more resources will have to be dedicated to overcome barriersand promote innovation and change while the case will be different in those sectors with a moredynamic environment where firms are more capable of cooperating in R&D and innovating. In theformer case, engineering and certification services play a relevant role in formalising innovationwhile in the second technology and R&D services have a higher priority and acceptance by partnerfirms. On the other hand, RTOs must avoid duplication of services in order to clarify each RTOrole in relation to their market needs. Finally, RTO performance measurement must contemplatethe multidimensional facet of their services and environment. We cannot utilise the same metricsfor RTOs in disregard of their industry focus. Innovation metrics (more than financial metrics)reflect more clearly RTO’s performance though they must be adapted to each RTO context.
In second place, RTO managers must select a clear strategy and project a clear image totheir served partners, contingent with their needs and industry situation. Certain best practiceswere identified and some of them have already been outlined by academic literature. Managingtheir interface and networking with other innovation agents such as consultants, universities,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
RTOs role as leaders of SME technology innovation 51
other RTOs, etc. A relevant practice would be required in their relationships with SMEs, whichrequire innovation culture approaches and novel type of projects such as cooperative innovationprojects supported by European resource. Technology and Market surveillance by RTOs shouldbe a usual practice in order to adapt to the industry globalisation dynamics. Finally, it mustbe emphasised the need in RTOs for human resource development and management as wellas developing organisational and knowledge management capabilities. RTOs should be able toevolve towards organic structures.
The limitations of this paper result basically from the size of the sample which, although100% representative of the population, does not allow a powerful regression analysis or morecomplex regression models. It must be taken into account as well that the study has concentratedon the RTO population of a single region, the East of Spain. On the other hand, the research willrequire a full analysis from the served firm’s perspectives, which should shed more light on theinteractions between RTO and their customers.3 Finally, the contributions of this study must beinterpreted with caution, since in spite of a relatively long-term perspective, the focus has beenon the Valencia region context, which may have certain characteristics – a weak mature industryleaning towards traditional sectors and composed heavily of small firms. The ongoing researchproject covers Spain and a forthcoming paper compares and discusses the results of the analysisof RTOs serving two Spanish regions.
Notes
1. We have adopted this term in order to generalise its inception.2. This research project is currently examining RTOs based in the Valencia region and in the Basque Country, in order
to compare the role of industrial environment and regional policies.3. The object of our following research.
Notes on contributors
José Albors-Garrigós is a professor of Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain. He received an MBA and a PhD inindustrial engineering from Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. He has 30 years international experience in engineering.He has published a number of articles in various journals such as Journal of Technology Transfer, Production, Planning andControl, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Management Research News and European Regional Studies. Hiscurrent research focuses on innovation and technology management. He teaches technology and innovation managementto undergraduate and PhD students and carries out consultancy on technology management.
Carlos A. Rincón Díaz is an economist and a PhD student in business management at Universidad Politécnica de Valencia(Spain). His fields of research interest are Strategic Management Innovation, Technology Transfer, Competitiveness andNational Innovation Systems.
Juan Ignacio Igartua (PhD, UPV) is a lecturer and a researcher at Mondragon University. He received his MPhil inProduction Engineering from Nottingham Trent University and holds professional certification in Project Management(PMP). Besides, he has been the director of the Office of Transference of the Results of Investigation of the engineeringfaculty for more than four years. His current research focuses on innovation management and academic technologicalentrepreneurship. He teaches innovation management to undergraduate, Masters and PhD students as well as he carriesout continuous training and consultancy on project management and innovation management.
References
Albors-Garrigos, J., N. Zabaleta, and J. Ganzarain. 2010. New R&D management paradigms: Rethinking research andtechnology organizations strategies in regions. R&D Management 40: 435–54.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
52 J. Albors-Garrigós et al.
Anderson, P., and M.L. Tushman. 2001. Organizational environments and industry exit: The effects of uncertainty,munificence and complexity. Industrial and Corporate Change 10, no. 3: 675–711.
Arnold, E., N. Brown,A. Eriksson, T. Jansson,A. Muscio, J. Nählinder, and N. Zaman. 2007. The role of industrial researchinstitutes in the national innovation system. Stockholm: Vinnova, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation.
Arnold, E., H. Rush, J. Bessant, and M. Hobday. 1998. Strategic planning in research and technology institutes. R&DManagement 28, no. 2: 89–100.
Arundel, A., and H. Hollanders. February 2008. Innovation scoreboards: Indicators and policy use. In Innovation policyin Europe, ed. C. Nauwelaers and R. Wintjes, 123–24. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Aström, T., M.L. Eriksson, and E. Arnold. 2008. International comparison of five institute systems. Forsknings-ogInnovationsstyrelsen. Copenhagen: National Danish Agency for Innovation.
Barge-Gil, A., and A. Modrego-Rico. 2007. Los centros tecnológicos como instrumentos de intervención pública. InCrecimiento y Políticas De Innovación: Nuevas Tendencias y Experiencias Comparadas, ed. X. Vence, 241–71.Madrid: Ed. Pirámide.
Barge-Gil, A., and A. Modrego-Rico. 2008. Are technology institutes a satisfactory tool for public intervention in the areaof technology? A neoclassical and evolutionary evaluation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26: 808–23.
Bessant, J. 1999. The rise and fall of ‘Supernet’: A case study of technology transfer policy for smaller firms. ResearchPolicy 28: 601–14.
Bititci, U.S., V. Martinez, P. Albores, and K. Mendible. 2003. Creating and sustaining competitive advantage in collabo-rative systems: The what? And the how? Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 14, no.5: 14–27.
Bozeman, B. 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy 29: 627–55.Brockhoff, K. 2003. Exploring strategic R&D success factors. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15, no. 3:
333–48.Burns, T., and G.M. Stalker. 1961. The management of innovation. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Camarinha-Matos, L. 2007. Special issue: Modeling approaches and frameworks for collaborative networks. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing 18, no. 5: 527–33.Castro, L.M., and J. Mota. 2009. Technological centers as a negotiated context to combine technological capabilities.
Group Decision and Negotiation 18: 467–82.Cesaroni, F. 2004. Technological outsourcing and product diversification: Do markets for technology affect firms’
strategies? Research Policy 33, no. 10: 1547–64.Damanpour, F., and S. Gopalakrishnan. 1998. Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: The role of
environmental change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 12, no. 1: 1–24.Davies, H., and P. Walters. 2004. Emergent patterns of strategy, environment and performance in a transition economy.
Strategic Management Journal 25: 347–67.Deutsch, C., J.C. Leclerc, and C. Meneghini. 2009. Successfully aligning the organizational structure of a R&D centre to
the reality of today’s environment. Proceedings ISPIM and R&D management conference, May 25th–29th, Vienna.Dhanaraj, C., andA. Parkhe. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review 31, no. 3: 659–69.Dietrich, G.B., and M.F. Shipley. 2000. Technology transfer in a complex environment: Exploring key relationships. 2000
IEEE international engineering management conference, July, San Francisco.Friedman, R.S., D.M. Roberts, and J.D. Linton. 2008. Principle concepts of technology and innovation management:
Critical research models. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing Hershey.García-Quevedo, J., and F. Mas-Verdú. 2008. Does only size matter in the use of knowledge intensive services? Small
Business Economics 31: 137–46.Grandy, G., and A.J. Mills. 2004. Strategy as simulacra? A radical reflexive look at the discipline and practice of strategy.
Journal of Management Studies 41: 1153–70.Holmström, M. 2006. Globalisation and good work: IMPIVA, a Spanish project to regenerate industrial districts. Tijdschrift
voor economische en sociale geografie 97, no. 5: 491–502.Howells, J. 1999. Research and technology outsourcing. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 11, no. 1: 17–29.Jassawalla, A.R., and H.C. Sashittal. 1998. Accelerating technology transfer: Thinking about organizational pronoia.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 15: 153–77.Jassawalla, A.R., and H.C. Sashittal. 2002. Cultures that support product innovation processes. Academy of Management
Executive 16, no. 3: 42–65.Leitner, K.H. 2005. Managing and reporting intangible assets in RTOs. R&D Management 35, no. 2: 125–36.Lumpkin, G.T., and G.G. Dess. 2001. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The
moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing 16, no. 5: 429–51.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
15:
06 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2013
RTOs role as leaders of SME technology innovation 53
Martínez-Gómez, V., A. Baviera Puig, and F. Mas-Verdú. 2009. Innovation policy, services and internationalization: Therole of Technology Centres. The Services Industries Journal 1, no. 14: 2–19.
Mas-Verdú, F. 2007. Services and innovation systems: European models of Technology Centres. Service Business 1, no.1: 7–23.
Mas-Verdú, F., A. Baviera-Puig, and V. Martinez-Gomez. 2009. Entrepreneurship policy and targets: The case of a lowabsorptive capacity region. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 5, no. 3: 243–58.
Mazzoleni, R., and R.R. Nelson. 2007. Public research institutions and economic catch-up. Research Policy 36: 1512–28.Miller, D. 1987. The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy. Strategic Management Journal 8: 55–76.Modrego-Rico, A., A. Barge-Gil, and R. Nuñez-Sanchez. 2005. Developing indicators to measure technology institutes
performance. Research Evaluation 14, no. 2: 177–84.Mrinalini, N., and P. Nath. 2008. Knowledge management in research and technology organizations in a globalized era
perspectives. Global Development and Technology 7, no. 1: 37–54.Nath, P., and N. Mrinalini. 2000. Benchmarking the best practices of non corporate R&D organizations. Benchmarking
7, no. 2: 86–97.Pitt, M., and K. Clarke. 1999. Competing on competence: A knowledge perspective on the management of strategic
innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 11, no. 3: 301–16.Redit. 2009. Accesed November 2011. http://www.redit.esRush, H., E.Arnold, J. Bessant, and R. Murray. 1996. Technology institutes: Strategies for best practice. London: Thomson
Learning.Saleh, S.D., and C.K. Wang. 1993. The management of innovation: Strategy, structure, and organizational climate. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 40, no. 1: 14–21.Stock, G.N., and M.V. Tatikonda. 2000. A typology of project-level technology transfer processes. Journal of Operations
Management 18: 719–37.Tann, J., A.E. Platts, and J. Stein. 2002. The roles of independent RTOs in the U.K. Technology transfer mechanisms to
SMEs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 14, no. 2: 241–9.Tompkins, C.A. 1992. Using and interpreting linear regression and correlation analyses. Clinical Aphasiology 19: 35–45.Vigier, P. 2007. Towards a citizen-driven innovation in Europe: A governance approach for a European innovation agenda.
Innovation 20, no. 3: 191–202.Walker, A., and H. Ellis. 2000. Technology transfer: Strategy, management, process and inhibiting factors. International
Journal of Innovation Management 4, no. 1: 97–122.Zahra, S.A., and W. Bogner. 1999. Technology strategy and software new ventures performance: Exploring the moderating
effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing 15: 135–73.Zubiaurre, A., M. Astoreca, J.M. Guibert, and K. Zabala. 2004. Collaboration relationships between firms and TCs in
the Basque Country. Pattern of innovation matters. Proceedings 13th NCSB, Nordic conference on small businessresearch, July, Oslo.
